Does anyone know why we’re defederated from beehaw.org?
Beehaw mods had issues moderating a flood of new users and low quality posts from here. As they put it, it was more “we don’t have the tools and staff to handle tons of new people” and less “we don’t like SIJW”.
Good explanation.
If I remember correctly they defederated from lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works because they were two huge and largely unmoderated instances but did say that they'd like to refederate if solid moderation was put in place.
The SIJW admin and them had talks and agreed that they'd refederate when Lemmy would have decent moderation tools that allowed for that, which hasn't happened yet.
If what you're saying is accurate, and these huge communities are largely unmoderated, then we have a pretty outstanding community here on Lemmy. Can you imagine the hate, vitriol, and absolute trash that would be visible if Twitter or Reddit were unmoderated? Yes we have some weird opinions and content, but nothing I've seen is overtly dangerous or hateful. Pretty cool, Lemmy. Pretty cool.
A lot of it is self-selecting IMO. We're big enough to have a good sized community, but we aren't so big as to become a big target. That will change as Lemmy gets bigger, but it least for now, it's small enough that the trolls probably don't get enough attention to bother sticking around.
If you want trash, you can find it on Lemmy, just check the list of most defederated instances. You don't see it because... well, they're defederated, which itself is one of the moderation tools available in the Fediverse.
Because sign ups were totally open during the Reddit Exodus was what started it, it lead to a huge influx of new users that had access to their instance while they run a tight show over there...
I hope we'll get to a place where they'll refederate with us. They have some really interesting communities. I didn't sign up for an account there because I wasn't willing to write a 7 page essay and take the blood oath to be admitted. I'm exaggerating... a little.
They want to be the "Elks Lodge" of the fediverse and that's totally fine. They were pretty transparent about their reasons for defederating with us and their reasons were understandable.
So what, what's wrong about expressing "I don't like this"? How's that different from expressing "I like this"?
The only "toxicity" is that it seems there are downvote trolls, so almost every post automatically gets a downvote immediately. But you can just ignore if you only have that one or two downvotes. If you can't handle that, you can't be surprised if you get called a snowflake.
More applicable to comments than posts... Used as "I don't like this" stifles conversation. For example, the comment that we're replying to has been downvoted two to one. It's a legitimate comment that is worthy of conversation but that won't happen because downvoting is being used as a "I don't like this" button. It inevitably creates an echo chamber.
I don't get that argument. Sometimes I just don't have the time or can't be bothered to write a comment, and a downvote serves as a perfect, fast replacement to indicate my disagreement.
Echo chambers are created exactly when you can't express youe disagreement easily. If all you need is an upvote to agree, but need to comment to disagree.
I hear there's this thing called ratio on Twitter, a comparison betwen something and something else, idk I don't use it. But you know what would be just as useful? Upvotes and downvotes.
I'm tired now, today I'll only be downvoting what I don't like :p
I'm not sure if Lemmy collapses heavily downvoted posts like Reddit does, but if it does it is also playing a part in creating an echo chamber.
I personally don't have a very strong opinion about up-/downvotes but in general I try to stick to only downvoting comments that are not contributing or down right hostile. I refuse to downvote a comment that is attempting to discuss something in a proper manner, even if I completely disagree.
I get your point about it being harder to agree than disagreeing with this type of mindset though, so it's not perfect.
“Ratioed” on Twitter is when a post has more comments than likes/favorites/whatever. Twitter doesn’t have downvotes. So, more comments than heart things suggests the post is disliked or controversial, as it’s presumed that otherwise people commenting would have also “liked” it or whatever it’s called on Twitter.
The echo chamber effect comes from mass downvoting of dissenting comments by a dedicated faction or the hive mind and mass upvoting by the same. The ticket to virtual popularity is popular soundbites.
A more perfect(*) solution would be separating sorting by relevance (formerly up-/downvote) from emotional reactions. There's the possibility of having a range of emoji reactions: agree, disagree, inaccurate, like it, bookmarked it, dislike it, find it funny, makes me happy, makes me sad, loveyou for this, what the fuck, find it's bullshit, (etc. but this is not necessarily a good selection). Some of the reactions (disagree, inaccurate ...) could also require a comment of at least (n) words to be left.
(*) oxymoron intentional
Edit: See here what people interested in development are opining about this idea: Add emoji reactions to posts, comments. #29
Downvotes hide discussion, and upvotes make them more visible. That's not what you want if your goal is to eliminate the echo chamber. Perhaps we should change the default sort to sort by controversial (i.e. lots of votes on both ends).
For example, let's say there are two comments:
The first comment is likely to be near the top, and the second will likely be buried near the bottom, and perhaps hidden (e.g. Reddit auto-hides if a comment goes too negative). That's not what you want if your goal is to have productive conversations.
From my experience, people are less likely to click the upvote when they agree with something or think it's relevant than they are to click the downvote button when they disagree. For some reason, disagreement is more likely to provoke a response than agreement. So if you eliminate the downvote as an option, you'll likely get people only voting on things that are relevant or really important to them. It doesn't solve the whole problem, but it at least seems to help a bit.
People can and will build botnets to artificially upvote their posts, and downvote opponents. It's too easily abused.
Ok so why keep upvotes? It's the exact same problem. I've seen so much crap with shittons of upvotes, but one downvote and it's suddenly an issue.
You are attacking me personally when I am talking about how to best make a forum function. If you want to go that direction then I'm happy to just end the conversation man.
The point is if downvotes are meant to tell us something meaningful or sort content in a way that we want, then it is currently not accomplishing these goals. Would you be happy with downvotes that strictly sort for you and are never visible to people? Because it's the latter component that truly causes issues when engaging in discourse.
If your objective is "I want to publicly express my displeasure as loudly and with as much impact as possible in an effort to sway public opinion" then great, the system works for you. But most people who care about dialogue and conversations not descending into flame wars constantly don't want that.
Oh ffs, I wasn't even talking about you specifically, the "you" was just generally addressing anyone, but yea I see it applies you completely.
Don't worry, I won't bother you with my "attacks" any longer, in fact I'll rather block you outright, because I can't stand people like you who scream "attack" or other bullshit accusations whenever someone is just in their vicinity. So I'll never reply to you ever again, win-win!
I don't see anything in the comment that I see as a personal attack. The person you replied to used "you," but I think that was meant as a general "you" (i.e. other people reading this) rather than you specifically.
I generally agree with you, but only for popular subs. In more niche communities, downvotes seem to do a better job of showing which posts are useful and which aren't, but once you get enough people involved, it seems to devolve into a popularity contest.
I would like to try something a bit different, more akin to what Twitter does. Basically, if a comment gets a ton of comments under it, it should be sorted more highly than one that doesn't. Maybe that way we can eliminate votes entirely, or keep upvotes and downvotes as a form of agree/disagree but reduce their impact on sorting.
I would say it’s pretty thinly veiled. Regardless, he’s incredibly hostile and angry. The conversation was well past its usefulness.
While in very formal English "one" is the generic pronoun and "you" is addressed to you personally, in casual English "you" is the generic pronoun with the same meaning as formal written French "on".
So the post above wasn't a personal attack. It used "you" to mean "one".
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
All the votes are tracked. You can’t hide behind the guise of anonymity. You could also ban users for abusing it. So I am sorry but I don’t agree to your point.
Anyone who cares about downvotes needs to get their head examined. A downvote can mean the person doesn't agree with your comment, doesn't like your tone, thinks you are incorrect, thinks the comment doesn't add to the discussion, hell they could downvote you just because they don't like your username. None of that matters. All it does is show you if your comment goes against the zeitgeist or not.
The whole point is that people can downvote you for any stupid reason and doesn't accurately reflect why a post is being rejected by the community. People will do it simply because they want to silence you.
And it causes issues with brigading, botnets, etc. It's why hexbear and lemmygrad are being defederated -- and their members are able to get around it simply by making accounts on other servers and going right back to the brigading. Removing the voting option and giving admins tools to IP ban everyone from an instance upon defederation would go a long way toward fixing the problem. Just putting the hurdle of needing a VPN to regain access alone will deter a lot of idiots.
and their members are able to get around it simply by making accounts on other servers and going right back to the brigading.
At least this is, like you said with VPN's, a hurdle. A lot of angry people won't bother creating extra accounts just to continue, even if many will. Anything that meaningfully decreases the former is generally a good idea lol
That’s my biggest problem with downvotes. I want to know why someone disagrees. That can initiate an interesting conversation.
If I’m factually incorrect, I want to know. Same goes if I expressed myself poorly. A downvote alone doesn’t tell me anything.
I've had plenty of times where a comment I made got downvoted like crazy, but a response I made to a comment asking for clarification got a lot of upvotes. It seems people really like to jump on that downvote button, especially if they see something already getting downvotes (i.e. maybe they don't even read it, they just downvote on reflex).
Votes happen to be really easy to deal with in software, which is probably why they're so commonly used. However, when it comes to people actually casting votes, they behave a lot differently than software creators expect.
So perhaps we should try something else, like maybe sort by "activity" (how many times the comment was replied to) to sort of counteract that reflex-like urge to use it as an agree/disagree button (if you agree or disagree strongly, you're likely to comment).
+80/-20 +50/-50 +20/-80 +1/-99 +100/-0
Just from those vote counts, I can be pretty sure the first comment is insightful, the second controversial, the third a troll, and the fourth is definitely spam. The fifth is probably a cat pic, relevant xkcd, meme, or a single-sentence comment that everyone loves, but doesn't actually add anything important to the topic. If I'm looking for an interesting conversation, I'm focused on the first two, maybe the third. If I'm looking to be pissed off, the third and fourth. And if I'm looking for an easy read, the fifth.
+80, +50, +20, +1, and +100 doesn't provide the same information. It's the downvotes that provide the relative context.
it isn’t sorting by “contribute/doesn’t contribute,” that’s for sure.
It's both. You're not wrong with the groupthink thing, but they absolutely do help to combat disinformation and useless comments. I get that you've made a decision, but you don't need to rationalize away the negatives.
I'm not rationalizing away the negatives. I think the pros simply outweigh the cons by a large margin re: getting rid of downvotes vs. allowing them. I didn't say it was a perfect, airtight solution with literally no flaws.
You can’t hide behind the guise of anonymity.
Actually, on Beehaw, you can. If Beehaw has the equivalent of kbin’s “activity” info, I haven’t found it.
Votes still get federated. Even if not exposed via UI anyone running their own (federated) instance can query for who voted on beehaw posts. Only a matter of time before that's directly exposed as a mod tool.
I upvoted this post even though I don’t agree with it. See the downvoted pic of the girl taking a shit to see why I think downvotes are needed at times.
Isn't that something that mods need to take care of though? Why should that burden be on the community members?
The word "community" goes a long way in answering that question imo.
If we look to the mods take care of everything, we're a group of content consumers, not a community.
If we look to the mods take care of everything, we’re a group of content consumers, not a community.
And then we have to deal with the community collectively adopting shitty or evil ideas and enforcing them, shutting down victims or anyone who opposes them. So who checks the community? Who protects the individual?
Sometimes mods are asleep or not locked to their desks. Downvotes help get shit like that (pun fully intended) out of most peoples feeds unless they are browsing by new or are way way way down on the hot scroll list.
Nah, we just need to interpret downvotes differently. If we count the votes the right way, it doesn't really matter if we use downvotes to indicate disagreement.
Reddit used to provide a tally of both upvotes and downvotes, rather than just the sum total of the two. The best top-level comments often had hundreds of both upvotes and downvotes, and vibrant discussions always followed. The quality of Reddit conversation dropped precipitously after they combined up and down votes into a sum total. They made it impossible to find the +500/-498 comments among the +4/-2 comments, calling each of them "+2" with a controversial tag, even though one was highly relevant, and the other was almost completely irrelevant.
A "vote" indicates a strong opinion on the subject, and is the more important metric to consider than the specific composition of the votes. Up or down, any vote is saying "check out this opinion".
I totally agree here. And I want to take it a step further and instead of sorting by average votes, we should merely be including it as one of many indicators, such as:
And so on. But instead, we seem to just sort by upvotes - downvotes and call it a day.
It is functionally a “I don’t like this” or “I’m right” button.
Sometimes comments are just wrong, and detract from the community. Downvotes (plus an interface that hides negative voted comments) clean things up without need for formal moderation.
Whatever can be said about downvotes (an automated system for marking one's disapproval) is probably true of reporting (a human reviewed system for marking one's extreme disapproval), too.
All this does is bury comments regardless of quality
But if downvotes (and upvotes) are well correlated with quality, then what's the problem? Your complaints are about community culture around downvotes, not about the mechanism itself.
I'd love to see a system where votes can be correlated between users so that the ranking algorithm weights like-minded voters and deemphasizes those voters you disagree with, but that would probably create a pretty significant overhead for the service.
But if downvotes (and upvotes) are well correlated with qualit
They aren't. That's the entire problem. Performative snark is rewarded. Agreeing with the dominant mentality is rewarded.
Well, at the time, they hoped for eventual refederation, too. Personally, I do as well. We’ll see!
Even when it’s clearly exaggerated it still overstates the burden. It takes 30s to apply.
I didn't sign up for an account there because I wasn't willing to write a 7 page essay
Yeah, you're not welcome. Everyone calling a couple questions an "essay", can shitpost somewhere else. I'm not exaggerating a bit, if someone can't be bothered to think through a couple answers ONCE, I don't trust them to think through the rest of their comments either.
To me, low-quality is when someone replies “lol” or “no you’re wrong lmao” vs a thoughtful post of multiple sentences.
Except that wasn't how they described it. They said they were getting a lot of posts that required moderator action, and people there said it was trolls and harassment.
A lot of NSFL stuff not tagged, a lot of blatantly transphobic and homophobic stuff meant to upset beehaw users since it's designed to be a diverse and welcoming space. Definitively not "lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works users were posting a lot of low effort memes" and much more "a small subset of lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works users are gaming the open sign ups to make the lives of our users worse"
Exactly - that description was kind of frustrating. It makes it sound like they took a drastic action to deal with a very mild annoyance, when apparently that wasn't the case
I've said before that I think Beehaw's goal of a harassment-free and troll-free space is unlikely to succeed on a federated platform, but I respect their right to give it a shot and their actions seem reasonable given the situation.
The Beehaw admins made this choice, and documented their rationale here: https://beehaw.org/post/567170
Man that is weird. Thank you for the link; I have such mixed feelings.
On the one hand, yes I think it makes a ton of sense to vet your userbase if you want to cultivate a particular sort of discussion (i.e., you want thoughtful comments vs shitposts and memes). OTOH, the response reads like a "For WUSSIES ONLY" want ad. It's the internet dude, toughen up a little. For the same reason, HOLY SHIT how do you have an instance without downvote? You can't curate content on moderation a lone. But then, maybe that's why they are defederated.
It's the internet dude, toughen up a little.
That is such a weird take. People go and create a space deliberately aimed at making people feel more welcome than on the rest of the internet, and you come and shit on it because... Why? Are people not allowed to create and seek out spaces where they're at least semi-protected from the bullshit greeting them everywhere else? Or do you feel entitled to interact with everyone on the internet however you like, regardless of their needs, and are upset to find out that sometimes, you can't?
I'm glad for you that you don't have the need for a place like beehaw, but other people sometimes just want to take a break from all the bullshit, and they have every right to do so, even on the internet.
Can you not smell the irony here?
"Nobody needs to listen to your crass and entitled take on safe spaces; think of their needs! Here is my entitled and intentionally provocative take on YOUR take, fuck your needs stranger."
Fortunately, this is not beehaw so we can have this enlightened exchange of ideas.
There's no irony here, that's exactly how it's supposed to work. My point is not that every space on the internet needs to be as protected as beehaw. My point is that it's valid for people to create and seek out spaces like beehaw if they feel like it, and to be protective of them, which you didn't seem to understand. But of course it's just as valid to not need that and engage in the kind of argument we're having here right now, because different places can have different rules, and that's totally fine, as long as you respect the rules of whatever place you interact with.
I'm not in beehaw, I'm out here in a reality-based internet forum. I see why people might want something protected, but that doesn't make it less weird to me, and it IS totally fine to think that it's weird.
Beehaw is to Lemmy (or any open forum on the internet) as planet fitness is to fitness. It's idealized and safe to the point that it no longer really fits in it's category. You can make the internet nice the same way you can get fit on bagels and donuts while walking the track: by pretending.
Nothing is wrong with pretend, but if you ever watch LARP you'll understand that it's strange to come across in the wild when adults do it.
What are you even talking about. The people on beehaw are not trying to pretend that the internet as such is nice. They are creating a community with a specific code of conduct, and that is just as real as any other place on the internet. You can still talk about shitty stuff, and you can have dissent, conflict and discussion on there, nobody pretends that that all doesn't exist. The only requirement is that you approach with respect and well-meaning by default for everyone around, there's nothing else to it. On the contrary, I feel like people who don't want to follow these rules are the ones pretending - pretending that they're not interacting with real people, that anything they say doesn't affect others.
You seem to be under the impression that any "nice" space must be fake, because, I don't know, people are inherently not nice, or something, and thus everyone must be just pretending? That's a pretty sad way to view the world, and absolutely not true in my experience. I know plenty of great places and communities made of people that just genuinely want the best for others by default, both online and offline, and it takes no pretending, it only takes a bit of caution to keep the very few people out that are not there to participate constructively and can't or don't want to clear the pretty low bar of respect and well-meaning.
It's the internet dude, toughen up a little.
What, can't take getting kicked out of the care bear club, tough guy? Their tiny wussie banhammers too much for you? Go ahead, downvote me, show everyone ALL your power!
(Hi, this is my non-beehaw alt.)
I don't get it? I'm happy to chat and be called a retard or whatever. Downvotes also fine. I just like to chat / argue/ debate.
I don't care about beehaw specifically. The post here says something like even one negative experience can take a huge amount of effort to undo... Really? Is it all that serious on the internet?
I'm not trying to bait you or be shitty or anything. Why does it matter so much?
Different people take things different ways, some have been taking shit all their life, some are at a breaking point, some are already broken and trying to pick up the pieces.
If you haven't experienced any of that, then congratulations, you're one of the lucky and/or young and/or sociopathic ones. Go out there and have fun! Break a leg, lose a finger, get mauled, set your hair on fire, get drowned, have people you trusted call you names dozens of times a day for a couple decades, get abused, beaten down... and when you've had enough, go on the internet.
Stuff isn't "all that serious on the internet", it gets serious IRL.
After that, some people go on the internet and don't feel like taking even the slightest extra bit of shit, so they don't participate, communities degenerate exponentially, leaving behind only memes and shit flingers, a corpse full of "tough guys" where any serious debate is dead before arrival. Not a problem if you have ads or sell blue checkmarks though!
To avoid that, Beehaw has a single main rule: be nice. Don't know how to chat/argue/debate while being nice to each other? Well, there is your chance to learn, the community will be glad to help if you're serious. Or just hop on and unwind for a while. If you try to stir shit up though, you get shown the door.
Sounds like a fine reason not to federate with beehaw to me. If you need a space to be safe safe, you're better off not having people like me close to it.
The world isnt nice. Neither am I :).
It works both ways, really. You don't want to be close when a nice guy snaps.
Safe spaces are not just to feel safe from you, they're also to keep staying nice.
Just popping up real fast to say, it's a pleasure seeing screenshots of my site while randomly scrolling through my feed. Thanks for using it!
I don't know, I just figured someone would have. I guess we're just a flyover instance.
Its one of the best run instances in the federation tbh. And it has a clear purpose of scope which means it doesn't get as overwhelmed as a general purpose instance
Site's dead?
Edit: Here's another site that lists blocks...
Site creator here, pleased to announce that it's back on! I fucked up and wrote some code that was very badly optimized, so the sizeable userbase chugged through my free monthly bandwith pretty quickly.
Thanks!
I like your avatar, btw. It would be very appreciated at !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works.
Thanks, I found it on wojak paradise. I agree, it's very fitting for NCD. Although I mostly lurk there, it was one of the first communities I joined after moving to Lemmy.
The didn't defederate from instances that require approval to join, e.g. Midwest.social
Lemm.ee is like the neutral planet, aside from the grot instances, we haven't been defeded or defended anyone yet as far as I'm aware.
Nah there are some. Very, very few have de-feded from us (most have done so because of buggy federation with lemmy in general), but we've de-feded from a handful of instances, just because they were too spammy.
We had a bit of drama with hexbear.net lol but we're still fedded with them. For now, anyway, some people don't want the hassle of letting them in but many are saying wait until after users can block instances and see how things are then.
They do seem to have settled after that initial surge of activity across the site that was getting peoples backs up.
https://defed.xyz/check/lemm.ee
Looks like you guys have defederated from four instances. Of these I only know burggit and well... I can't say I blame you for that.
To add to what others have said, the reason beehaw defederated is because they have particular rules (eg no downvotes) that they're very strict about to ensure that their instance is the safe space they want it to be. It's not so much that lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works users were acting up against beehaw, just that beehaw expects users to be very well behaved in their instance.
I have noticed a trend within myself, similar to out of state plates, that once I notice one rude user from an instance I spend a few days seeing other users from that instance being rude and goings "figures"
never mind I encounter many perfectly pleasant users from that instance
My experience on Beehaw so far is that 80% of them are nice and 20% of them are Portlandia characters.
I have an alt there, the admin defederated due to the infamous literal shit spammer.
It might be worth informing him that the issue has been solved
Its down at the very bottom of this thread sitting at -35 votes and still not removed by a mod. I reported it, but I'm also from a different instance and may or may not have burned a few bridges with the management of this instance on my way out
You can't say "we" on a fediverse system, because the post is gonna be seen by everyone everywhere. I'm not on sh.itjust.works, I'm viewing your post on kbin, and it's also gonna be seen on all the other lemmy servers that are federated with yours.
That's my point exactly. Their title asks "Does anyone know why we’re defederated from beehaw?" but the majority of people reading this post will be on instances that AREN'T defederated with beehaw. The post needs to say "Does anyone know why sh.itjust.works is defederated from beehaw?"
I mean it doesn't take much critical thinking to realize defederation is per instance, so mayyybbbeee they're talking about the instance they're both part of and posting in.
It takes two seconds to mention the instance when talking about an instance specific topic.
Stop trying to discourage suggestions to improve clarity.
you could also stop browsing other instances main?
Takes 1 second to think about it, even less time
I'm seeing this from just the All page on kbin. That's where I find other communities I may want to join.
I have not left my instance to see this post.
Yet this is a post from another instance yes?
So maybe this is where that critical thinking comes in, if you set out to view other instances, don't be afraid if you just happen upon other instances
This is a Kbin problem with not showing the instance name for communities and users. The solution is for kbin to fix it's UI not for users to add unnecessary information to their post titles.
I suggest you make a post in the Kbin meta magazine if this bothers you instead of complaining to people who did nothing wrong.
I don't browse other instances' main, they show up under All together from any federated instance on kbin.
Pretty much everyone is seeing it just by looking at their instance's homepage, they're not browsing on sh.itjust.works's page. If you post on your instance's main page, then EVERYONE on EVERY instance will see it on THEIR instance's homepage too. That's how federation works.
So, in addition to posting in a community specific page I should also clarify for idiots who don't know how the technology they're using or who can't take a moment and think for themselves about what's flashing on their screens?
You mean if youre viewing all? Then yeah you might get all posts (no friggin way). This is where that critical thinking comes in
This is the community for discussing sh.itjust.works. that's what this whole ass community is
Every post in this community is an instance specific topic. That's the point of the community.
They posted on the community for discussing the server they're on. There's some onus on you to look at what communities someone is posting to
It's further exacerbated if you're using apps that don't immediately show the instance a post is from
Even so, the image that this post is discussing specifically mentions the sh.itjust.works instance. So even if your app sucks, the linked post gives you all the context you need to understand that this is specifically discussing the sh.itjust.works instance.
The majority of people are reading this either from Lemmy's UI, or from some app for Lemmy, both of which clearly show which community+instance this was posted to.
Ask kbin devs to fix their UI and do the same.
There appears to be some miscommunication between instances in this thread regarding how posts appear from other communities. I think many arguments are stemming from this, so to clear things up:
It is trivial for users on sh.itjust.works to see what is posted where. It is less obvious for kbin.social users to do the same. Personally, I think it's a kbin issue for not surfacing enough post information.
This is more of a problem about English making no distinction between "we" (us including you) and "we" (us excluding you)
That's related, but it should still be pretty clear from context.
If I say, "the current President doesn't represent us," I'm obviously not talking about the whole world, or even the whole country, but the specific subgroup that I'm a part of (i.e. maybe my demographic, political party, etc). If I say, "we need to take responsibility for the state of the planet," I'm talking about everyone in the whole world, not just me and my specific demographic or political party.
It would be a lot clearer if we had better words in English, but it is usually quite clear from context. In this case, this is posted to the sh.itjust.works' "main" community, and the post specifically mentions sh.itjust.works in the image that's linked. It's pretty clear it's talking specifically about the sh.itjust.works instance.
The same mistake could be made, since OP assumed the audience is the SIJW instance, thus using inclusive we, when actually its the whole federation, the exclusive we could have been used.
Yup. Im reading this on kbin too, and my initial reaction was “Beehaw is defederated from kbin? When did that happen?!?”
Yeah, really wish people would mention their instance, it's more of a guessing game trying to work out what people they're actually referring to
Stop using garbage ass kbin and you'll be able to see what instance the people are using. No one should have to cater to kbin users.
The short version is because the mods there are very special (in abad way) and like to gatekeep their echochamber as much as possible.
The long one is because they have a vision where their platform is more safe to its users which should be more likeminded individuals and would like to keep it as true and safe as possible acording to their vision, which im not sure what it really is, from what i heard is that they are very left leaning but in an extreme way and dont like discidents, so anyone thats not as likeminded as them is just straight up not welcome then. They probably call disicidents harasers and just ban them. So an echochamber.
Now officially what they said is that everybody but them sucks at moderating and wont refederate untill they dont suck anymore. They say thats because everyone doesnt have sophisticated tools for moderating but i think they just whant everyone to enforce their ideals everywhere else, and if thats the case i believe we are better of without them.
Well i rather be called a wanker and get downvoted to oblivion for commenting unpopular comments than to get straight up banned for it. Thats the type of shit that made me leave reddit instead of keep fighting overly sensitive jannies and nearsighted leadership. It just gets old really fast, and its no way to live.
Your comments so far are uninformed drivel and speculation, which only gets made worse by the fact that the rules of the instance are public for anyone to see. In practice, the mods have too much leniency in many cases, and unlike other communities, allow for actually fixing your behavior (or drunken comments), instead of pulling Reddit shit like banning you for appealing a random suspension.
Well thats why im being speculative about it, since i have not been to behaw myself nor are planning to since from what i read they are heavy on shit i dont like, and bessides because i dont care enough to "better inform myself" on some random niche fediverse instance, im just spewing out what i heard, and i dont like what i heard abbout it and its that they do much censorship, thats why i recomend people to not go there since i would like that people dont have to deal with censorship.
and bessides because i dont care enough to "better inform myself" on some random niche fediverse instance, im just spewing out what i heard
Why not just say nothing then?
So I recently had a lengthy conversation with the admins over at Beehaw about this. And the impression I got was that it really came down to two or three major outstanding issues.
number was was moderation tools. We must get to building better moderation tools.
For number two i'll just attach a screenshot. You can click to view it because I don't want to clutter up this thread to much.
::: spoiler Conversation with Admins
:::